KONGINI BALAN Vs. M VISALAKSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the respondent in M. C. 63/1979 of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tellicherry. The respondent herein filed M. C. 63/1979 claiming maintenance under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate negatived the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance as provided under S. 125 of the Cr. P. C. as the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month. Against the decision of the learned Magistrate the above Cri. R. P. has been filed.

(2.) The only contention of the revision petitioner is that the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance under S. 125, Cr. P.C. as the marriage was dissolved by mutual agreement. Contention of the revision petitioner is that a wife who obtained divorce through mutual consent would not be entitled to claim maintenance. It is argued that a "wife who is residing separately by mutual consent" is not entitled to maintenance under S. 125(4) of the Code and a divorcee by mutual consent cannot be in a more advantageous position.

(3.) Advocate Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out that a wife could become a divorcee by different ways, viz. by being divorced by the husband, by obtaining divorce from the husband and by putting an end to the marriage by mutual consent. He argued that only under the first two categories a wife would be entitled to maintenance as is very clear from S. 125(1) Explanation (b) of the Cr. P. C. In other words, he contended that a woman who has been divorced by mutual consent cannot claim maintenance from her former husband.